About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 193 (some duplicates have been removed)
relates to the duties of office because the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer and also responsible for handling domestic violence programs within the county. now the commission believed -- the majority believed that while there was some room for debate as to whether this conduct or decency clause is limited by the relations to the duties clause, they found that it didn't matter. ultimately whether or not the decency clause is related to the duties of office in this case official misconduct had been shown. now, i've looked at this charter provision quite a bit so when i say things like conduct, clause, and decency clause, they mean something. perhaps -- not sure how much you all have looked at it. so i am going to borrow a definition that the parties ultimately agreed to, and this is a handout actually that i believe the mayor may have created. so this is the language of 15105e, but broken down in a way to identify theirs clauses within that section. it reads, official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her offi
dissolution law, all of the payees associated with those contracts must be painfully lifted out, line item by line item, with source of funding on a schedule. that schedule is approved by the oversight board, the state department of finance every month. this test import -- jason indicated -- our surviving major redevelopment projects, equivalent to 20 billion, candlestick phase 1, and 2, mission bay, state -- transit center, all part of one redevelopment plan and other true wind-down activities honoring our commitment throughout the city whether in the third street bayview corridor, like a bankruptcy, wind down pay off the debt so the tax increment in the series is available for distribution to the taxing entities, city, county, bart, schools. free up the taxes generated for distribution to the other entities. in the case of san francisco we do have a lot at stake. a number of these area plans which the commission approved the board approved as i indicated, made or approved, hunters point, mission bay, trans bay, another obligations that need to be implemented, they are
consumption on the premise. so the san francisco law is very clear. there is no smoking indoors or outdoors for any type of establishment that serves food or beverages. and mr. ahmed the choice to violate the health code by allowing his patrons to smoke indoors even after our meeting, even after i denied the exemption application, and even the follow-up phone calls that we had in 2010. i also sent a notice to comply. that was in 2011. and then there were two notices of violations that were issued in february and may of this year. so because of the continued repeat violation, the department ordered a cease and desist of smoking inside of the cafe, also insisted the complete removal of all smoking products and smoking devices, and a 30 day suspension for the tobacco permit. now my last meeting with mr. ahmed was june 19, 2012 and he showed me his new product that he wanted to convert to, which is these rocks soaknd jis rin and the glycerin is infused with flavors. i went last night and wanted -- to observe the operations. so it was the same huka pipes being used, the smoking devic
there is an entire body of case law to look to for guidance that has weighed many kinds of different kinds of misconduct against the professional standards and responsibilities with the person who committed it, and determined the situations where there is a relationship and there isn't a relationship. and, frankly, if you think about the facts of this case, it's not a hard call. does committing a crime of violence against your wife and pleading guilty to it, and suffering a three-year criminal conviction relate to the subject matter of a chief law enforcement officer, who runs the jails and helps administer the correctional system in san francisco? yes. yes. upon that is not an unpredictable, vague, surprised relationship. yes, there's a clear subject matter relationship. most cases will be clear. there will be cases on the boundaries where, you know, the decision-makers are going to have to exercise judgment. but there's a three -- there's a tripar tight system with checks and balances to make sure that the decision is considered, and there is also court review after that, in case the --
the standard of conduct is for a chief law enforcement officer. so although the language of the charter seems broad, it -- i mean there's certainly a good argument that it is a single standard. at the same time, it needs to be interpreted -- and is susceptible to being interpreted as a standard that his office-dependent. and again that would require a fact-specific inquiry. you can't decide in advance, without knowing what has happened in a particular case, whether it's misconduct or not misconduct. it depends on the office. >> president chiu: colleagues, follow-up questions. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thanks, president chiu. madam city attorney, to follow up on that line of questioning though, on one hand you say it should be easy to determine what is misconduct or not. on the other hand you say it's fact specific. i think commissioner hur's comments does that not invite subjectivity and gets us back to what the question is here, about clear delineation and having security and not the future abuse this potentially in the future, not to say anybody in this room or the current
, we strengthened the law, through a local ordinance. so this is not really anything new. this has been on the books for quite some time. the other thing i wanted to add is that even if there were no tobacco product being used in the hukas -- and i do believe that having the tobacco products there, open in a container, it would seem that it would be very likely that the customers would put the huka tobacco product on the hot stones if there are huka pipes present. that this is sort of similar to the phenomenon of electronic cigarettes, which now were recently banned by the airport commission and they're banned on airplanes. and this is even though there's no tobacco that is used in electronic cigarettes, the problem is that it gives the public the impression that smoking is permitted in areas where it's not permitted, and it also gives the impression to the public that there's no consequence to smoking in areas where smoking is not permitted. tobacco is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in the united states, and the two major factors that have reduced smoking in san franc
processes and not/cbuu)áu or contort the law that we think best serveswj!or everyone. i will not be voting today to sustain the/ >> president chiu: supervisor:k wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, ú?7t% %9q. >> president chiu: order please. : supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. this whole process i know has been incredibly%0b= hard for other than --c4í,÷ everyone involved especially being asked to judge a former colleague.4 and i am going to speculate that i don't think any of the 11 of us are goingwxas' to walk out of this room tonight feeling great, no matter what happens, no matter how weóçuon vote. this case has been incredibly messy on many, many levels. andp6f-7ñ will say that you know, in the community, thereÁare people whom i know, and who i respect, who feel very, very strongl$)i on both sides of this issue. and i think that reflects how difficulty this is. tonight, i will be voting to sustain the charges of misconduct in agreement with recommendation of the ethics co
misdemeanor conviction relates to the duties of the sheriff as a law enforcement officer. >> supervisor kim: so then you're adding to the test then the second portion of your test would be a relationship test, plus the ethics commission would have to determine that it falls below the standard of decency for that office. >in relationship to the sheriff's office, but if we were to assume that it is standards in relationship to your specific office, for the sheriff, it would be the relationship to his office, plus the -- what common sense would judge as falling before the standard of decency? this is where i get stuck is when does it fall below the standard of decency? a dui could be -- as a misdemeanor. you didn't hurt anyone per se, but you could have. you could have killed someone on the road, right? so i guess that's where i would like more clarity. when does it fall below the standard of decency for the sheriff, if we were to argue that there are standards? >> well, the mayor submitted the testimony of an expert, this person was the chief -- is william -- the chief of police of the san di
put --2eúÑ the public puts in public officials and the city law, and city law enforcement. we need toíy and balances in city government and how we're upholding the will of the voters. i think it goes without saying that no one here condones any form of domestp whether it is physical verbal or psychological abuse and all could havet )ñ been in play tonight. i'm proud as a city we have8ep )tátdomestic violence and what we can domestic violence in the future. ash£&ic officials we are expected to be models of good behavior and lawful behaviory,çgx while everyone knows none of us are perfect. there was reasonable expectation of greateroqt&3 scrutiny of public officials in our private practices. but this vote is not about affirming thatÑh$ what -- is not about affirming that we abhor all forms of domestic violence or;@6u )jt moral standards for elected officials. what we are here to decide is whether or not sheriff is guilty of official misconduct and thus8qoñ removal from offers. while the agents -- the commission > jf÷ñ 4-
son and daughter-in-law are expecting a boy in march; my granddaughter will have a little brother. finally more importantly, i did meet with project sponsor a couple of weeks ago in regards to 2830 toledo, i did have a chance to look at the plans and i'm happy to work with the dr requester and project sponsor to forge a compromise that will make it something that the commission can evaluate and find compromise. this will come back in november. i think there's a lot of potential there. >> congratulations. another line of antoninis in san francisco. commissioner woo. >> i want to announce that this saturday is affordable housing day in san francisco. there will be a number of tours. affordable, seniors, partnership between aia and the number of affordable housing developers.anyone that wants to stop by feel free. >> we can move onto directors reports. directors announcements and review of the board of supervisors, board of appeals in historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon. a couple of quick announcements. it was sent electronically, mm on the current status of
standards that are expected of a chief law enforcement officer. now, commissioner hur mentioned that the chief testified that any misdeed at all would be official misconduct, if committed by a sheriff. i don't think that's entirely accurate. i think what the chief testified to is that -- is that the sheriff is expected, under the professional and ethical standards associated with his particular office, to avoid most forms of dishonesty, that behavior -- accountability, being a poor role model. there are many kinds of wrongful behavior that don't rise to the level of criminals that are wrongful for a sheriff. but at the end of the day, i don't think -- i think you're posing the more difficult question than the relationship test. your question is when is the -- when is the misconduct severe enough that we should consider it official misconduct. and that isn't a function of the relationship test. conduct may relate to the duties of office without being so severe that it should rise to the level of official misconduct. i think that that -- the charter does not offer you an answer to
that some future mayor will be -- not by the rule of law but the temptation to remove a political adversary. removing an elected while not in office iscq.c4 not justice. if any case cry out for a bright line rule, for a clear and unambiguous application for the law to the fact it is this case. i will turn it over to shepherd kopp. thank you. >> president chiu: will remind members of the public, the first rule of this chamber is for members of the public not to express either applause or other statements. thank you. mr. kopp. >> thank you. good afternoon, members of the board, president. i'm shepherd kopp and along with mr. wagner i've been representing sheriff ross mirkarimi during these proargs. i want to discuss why we strongly believe that we don't need to draw from other jurisdictions as the mayor has, in order to arrive at a definition of official misconduct, that works in san francisco, and that is workable. and that has been tested. and the reason that we have come back time and again to the case involving commissioner mazzola is because, in that case, we saw board of supervisors sit
identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisors, what if anything would you propose to strength the city's ethics laws. i will start with mr. davis. >> strong ethic laws are essential. what is happening with our sunshine task force and hope davis can speak to this since she recently served on the task force. these need to be strengthened and one problem we have is around enforcement. i would like to see more of the ethical violations of larger committees, some of which are operating, for instance, in some shady areas of law. one was the run he ed run, the committee for mayor ed lee last year and the campaigns that aren't swaying the politics of city, the way the run ed run campaign did. so i think that is one the issues and improving our good government and ethic laws in san francisco. >> miss breed, would you like to address the question? do you want me to repeat it? >> yes. >> sure. a recent chief civil grand jury report, at the request of supervisor campos the city conducted a comparison of laws identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as su
. legislation that we have before us strengthens an existing law, to restrict this practice known as hotel evasion. in 1981 the passage of the apartment conversion ordinance, which is second, 41-a of the administrative code made it illegal for residential propertis with four or more units to be occupied pore for less than 30 days. unfortunate le what we have found in recent years there has been a problem that has persisted due to enforcement challenges and a loophole in the law. in recent years we have seen many corporations sidestep this law by signing long-term loiss with property owner ises that their non-san franciscan employees can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing or tourism residential housing. so for example, as an example, in my district, the tenants at the large golden gateway [kph-efpl/] have experienced corporate employees and guests that come in and out of their buildings just like a hotel. based on rent board record there's are an estimate of dozens of these units that are leased by corporate entities. this not only creates quality of life issues for neighbors
line. there are many bright lines in the law. now again not every law is susceptible to a bright line but by and large i think it does benefit the public when the laws are clear so that they can easily be followed. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: you somewhat addressed this already when you said that it may be challenging for you to address the actual relationship to the office that was determined by the majority of the commission, but since you were sent to represent the commission i thought i would ask, so having read the transcripts several times actually the one question that was not answered to me is what exactly is the relationship to the office? i heard a couple of examples such as the sheriff runs our domestic violence programs and he committed an act of domestic violence. from your understanding of the majority of the commission is that the relationship, or was there another kind of clear delineation of what that relationship to the office was, for specifically counts 4 and 5? >> supervisor kim, i think that was the relati
their charges, a law enforcement official, or a public official could rob banks on their way to their inauguration, and there's nothing that anybody could do about it. well, there's a couple of points that i'd like to make about that. number one is the charter of san francisco, while an admirable document, is not perfect. in fact, there's no provision in the charter that permits anyone to remove the mayor for official misconduct. the only way a mayor can be removed is by recall, or defeat in the next election. so the mayor could commit a first degree murder, and not be removable, unless the voters decide to take matters into their own hand and remove him. the mayor has also made the argument that this removal provision,ka@u 15.105, is a valuable, speedy and effective tool. and they want you to do the work, that the voters might have to do if they were to decide to launch a recall election. well the voters have decided to launch a recall election, thateÑ issue would be decided next month. so their argument that this is procedure is not borne out byk5p the facts and the length
of sheriff includes not just the direct oversight of programs in thexs- those who have broken the law. this criminal" completely related to the official duties of the sheriff. and it isib how deputy sheriffs, who are not bpj4(p&c"p% allowed to commit crimes while they're off duty to keep their jobs are askedi?z1e to abide by one standard and not require the sheriff, their boss, to abide by that same standard. secondly as i think through the3]ez arguments of the sheriff's lawyers, they have been very good arguments it's hard for me to agree with the suggestion that somehow this is a personal act of misconduct but not official misconduct, that we are only responsible for what happens from 9:00 to 5:00 when we sit in our public office. as public officials, and<:q0z when we ran to be public officials, i think we knew that we are held to a different standard given our position.pí'0$@&c"p% it's also hard for me to agree that a public official somehow@/:uÑ immune with this conduct, just because it happened after election day but befc1a s
to suspend the sheriff was without basis in the law and why you must ultimately reinstate the sheriff. ross mirkarimi campaigned on the power of redemption. he's been a key proponent of restorative justice in this city. but there is no question that on december 31st, 2011, ross mirkarimi made a serious and terrible mistake. and how did he deal with that mistake? he immediately apologized to his wife. he entered into counseling. he apologized to the people of san francisco. he pled guilty to a criminal offense. all of that underscores the responsibility that rossq]j terrible mistake that he made on new year's eve last year. and as a result of that mistake, several months from his wife and son. he was suspended without pay, with no means to provide for hi family. his entire life's work was destroyed almost in an instant. he's beenwácf described by the r and the mayor's attorneys with the most inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric, yet at the end of the day, the punishment does not fit theyxúw crime. this afternoon, i'm going to spend a fe7%g minutes telling u about why this case is differ
onzo0eñ the innuendo and comments that have been made. we decide this casee24ne based on the law that governance official misconduct, including. the charter provisions that control it, and based on theam1sidence presented. and if you look at the facts and aç the law, it is clear that there are two possiblel+lcm interpretations of what official misconduct and while i understand and respect the position that has been articulatedí
size would have the same spending obligations as laid out in the law, and he and i have had many conversations where he's made it clear where that was always his understanding, and late 2010, several workers and their advocates came to my office to explain that in their view, employers had found and were exploiting a loophole in the health and security ordinance, a small number of businesses of employers were voiding the majority of their spending requirement by allocating money to what is known as a health reimbursement account. often, using these accounts to severely restrict the types of services that the accounts could be used for often providing no notice of the existence of the accounts to their workers and then reclaiming the majority of money allocated to those accounts at the end of the year. we also discovered that many of these employers were profiting from the law by charging surcharges in the name of employee health care and then pocketing the majority of the money that was collected from consumers in san francisco. so, given that workers were not receiving the healt
look at all of the policy concerns, and the case law, it becomes clear that it makes no sense whatsoever to draw the line at the oath of office rather than at the election. it would be contrary to the voter's intent to enhance the ethical responsibilities of their public officials and hold them accountable to imply this two month free zone in between the election and taking the oath of office, where that elected official could do whatever he wanted with no consequences with his public position, until that moment when he walks up to the lectern and raises his hand. it also would lead to absurd results. an elected official could, for example, commit domestic violence on tuesday, and be safe from any official consequences. but if the oath of office is later that day, he couldn't do the same thing on wednesday. that's a completely arbitrary line. it makes no sense whatsoever. it's very different if you draw the line at the election. that makes perfect sense. once an official has been granted the voters trust, then he also has the ethical obligation to protect that trust by not com
duties as chief law enforcement officer in his role administering the city's domestic violence programs. the fact that the relationship test is interpreted by the ethics commission majority to include a subject matter relationship is really very sensible. what happens if you commit misconduct in the very terrain, the very subject matter that you're charged with as a government official is you implicate the public character of your office. if you're the tax collector, and you misrepresent your income on your income taxes, that's not purely private misconduct. that is a matter of public concern because it shows the public that it has a fox in the henhouse, essentially. that's very different, if, for example, you're an animal control officer and you misrepresent your income on your taxes. and think of it in reverse. what if you're an animal control officer. is there a relationship to the duties of your position if you're running a dog fight ring? in your private time? of course there is. no one wants michael vic in control of the animal control department. at the same time, if michael vic
almondover. he joined the uc davis school of law in 2004, following a clerkship with judge cal braise of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. interest include election law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law and property and natural resources law. he is a resident of san francisco's mission district. we are honored to work chris almendorf. [ applause ] >> thank you very much and thank you to all of the candidates who are here today. we're very fortunate to be joined by six candidates and what i hope will soon be seven. all of the candidates have agreed to ask their supporters to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to maintain quiet during the forum. i ask you to respect that commitment. every aspect of this forum will be equally fair to all participating candidates. as everyone here knows candidate debates are often limited to latitudinal appears and personal attack. our debate focuses on critical areas of policy disagreement among the leading candidates. so this end the league of women voters of san francisco and
, neither the sheriff, supervisor, or any elected official is above the the law. however, what we also have the opportunity to demonstrate is that serving in one of these positions does not deem a person unworthy of redemption. to declare public officials don't deserve second chances goes against we are as a city. personal conduct from the previous mayor on do unto civil servants. we have been open minded by allowing people with criminal records to reengage with society responsibly and be accountable for their actions. whether a public official or a public servant, a member of the board or a member of the public, we all deserve the opportunity to bring about positive changes. finally, sheriff mirkarimi made an egregious mistake, one that has had serious personal professional and legal consequences. his actions were un undeniably wrong and has taken treatments toward court mandated resolution. however based on instructions provided to my by voters of san francisco through the charter i cannot find that his actions were
as a little bit being dragged over a wooden fence? because that's what happened to me. i don't have a law degree like many of you do but i believe my constitutional right under the law has been violated because someone involved in this case got two days in court for allegations that were nowhere near what happened to me. i want to know why gina flores was given two days in court. i'm here to support reinstatement of ross mirkarimi. because we need his leadership yesterday. i want to ask a question perhaps to invoke a little bit of humor. i wonder who is the biggest liar, mayor edwin lee, the san francisco chronicle, or mitt romney. >> president chiu: next speaker please. >> hi. my name is kathy black, executive director ofwc]%u la ca de los madres. the facts matter.41q$ the sheriff admitting a violent act against his wife.#[t he pled guilty to false imprisonment in a domestic violence quais. we have not been surprised by the minimize of the injury and unwillingness to takeÑ2 responsibility and blaming others. in front of you today we stand for victim(abq safety. it is also up to us to
by federal law, it's not an easy solution, but the vast majority of san francisco businesses provide insurance and the vast, vast majority of son fra*ns businesses are spending required amounts of money, every survey and report by your agency show that and supervisor campos has acknowledge hated but there is an issue with some categories of business, but we're working together, small business associations, the chamber on educating employers and employees on the rights and obligations under this law. we've worked with television ads on cable television, the city, websites, direct communication with members, thousands of employers have been communicated with by our organizations and by the city to understand how to make this work for the employee and how to make it work financially for the employer because you have to remember in the last half a dozen years, the cost of small business to employ entry level workers in san francisco has gone up 50%. that is health mandate, sick leave, minimum wage, things we believe in, things that as san franciscans we support but things that have a tre
the observation of mr. nee. because the sunshine law, 65.24 is far more clear than the public record section as defined in the state law. and i would like to point out that it says in section 67.36 of sunshine that, the ordinance supersedes all other local laws. this is the governing law of official conduct in san francisco. so if i go to the san francisco police department and i want to look at records of a case that is closed. i shouldn't have any problem from the san francisco police department saying no, we can't share any tape recordings with you. or we can't share any evidence that was collected both audio and video with you. where in fact if the case is closed, those are public records. specifically if i want to apply those to commissioner harris. this is important. and i am surprised you looking at me shocked. this is what you get if you spend 10 months on ross mirkarimi railroading him and 10 days trying to push this through. and it doesn't give us an idea of the information and i excuse me me mr. st. croix i was not able to read the documents of this meeting. but i wasn't able to r
this decision to assure the public that i am aware of the long-lasting impacts there will be on the law, the sheriff, and his family. the community of domestic violence prevention advocates, the over all moral of the city and county of san francisco now and in the future. whatever the outcome my hope is that all of us, as residents of this city, will use this as an opportunity to fine-tune our moral compass, to lean more toward honor, nobility, justice and compassion. with that said, i think it is important to note the process that i went through in evaluating the issue. when determining whether to sustain the charges as issued by the mayor, and recommended by the ethics commission i worked backwards. i thought of it in the context of, in order to remove the sheriff, what would be necessary. and in my opinion, the removal of any elected official from office requires that the mayor supply evidence that demonstrates with great certainty that the charter prescribed definition of official misconduct was violated. so thes
to the duties that the sheriff has, the duty to enforce the law, to administer the jails, to lead his deputies by example, to protect victims of domestic violence. the mayor put in really quite a bit of evidence about all the ways in which the subject matter of the sheriff's duties is -- touches on domestic violence, offender rehabilitation, officer discipline, et cetera, things that are affected throughout all of his performance. now, the sheriff argues that since he was elected to office, it should be left to the people to recall him from office, through the recall procedure. but that's really wrong. the san francisco charter, as you know, is the city's constitution. it contains the most fundamental rules and principles that the people have determined for themselves about how they wish to be governed. and one of the ways that the people would like to be governed is they would like to have a process, and have votes -- this process, whereby officials who may have already -- whom they have already elected can be removed from office if they commit official misconduct after the election. and you'
carefully. the language that defines official misconduct as bad conduct that violates laws related to a particular office or to all public offices. a charge of official misconduct must logically contain a description of a particular conduct or behavior, and a reference to an ethics or conflict of interest law. it is clear that no evidence has been presented that the sheriff's behavior is official misconduct. look at the mayor's charges, amended charges, brief, or whatever document you wish. listen to the endless drama of commission hearings. there are no charges of official misconduct. there is no action paired with citation of relevant law that has been broken. charges of official misconduct are the emperor's new clothes. >> president chiu: next speaker. >> hi. my name's teresa cooper. and i worked on ross' campaign. and it really hurts my heart to see what's going on in my city. i've never supported anyone in this city, never got involved in politics. but i felt ross was right. and i went with that as a healer. i was one of the best ones at rubberbanding, okay. i've really truste
';[ under the color of the law. i think about the last time this came before us -- notpwon÷ before the board of supervisors but the last time it occurred in the city andi@4y that was with ajew. if supervisor+>çda elect had told the store he would help them through a planning processbú$g if they took a bribe before he swore an oath of office i(r think he committed official misuse of conduct because he is using his office under the color of the law so tai he can do one thing or a; i think the timing issue has been well settled here. on the definition ofy[ri official misconduct, and hees where i agree with chairman huh i think wej1jj need to take the most narrow definition of official misconduct asxn1 defined by maz ol-a and black's law disiksary and that the conduct clause whether it falls below the standard of desen ski must be inwwg2f direct relation and connected to the performance of your official duties or purá,6u purporting to perform your official duties. on the standard, and this isuú0zp where it got stickier for me is where i
including community leader sam ladder. after graduating from u.c. berkeley and hastings law school, bob joined a family firm and became active in numerous civic organizations, particularly within the jewish community as well as on our san francisco human rights commission. he also had a love of politics and successfully ran the mccarthy campaign for the board of supervisors. and i know that he will be missed dearly by the community and his family. my third in memoriam is for gary cray who is known by many in the telegraph hill community, my district, as the filbert steps gardner. gary tended to the gardens of the filbert steps, which is one of our city's great hidden treasures for more than three decades. and he took care of the sprawling garden as a volunteer. it was truly a labor of love for him and he was never paid a dime for t. he worked his hearts -- poured his heart into his work to create a clean, green and serene space that many in my neighborhood and throughout the city have grown to love and appreciate. in addition to caring for gardens, he was also someone who was dedicated
year, and to just respond to the concern that that data is from before the change of law took effect that places restrictions on the ability to give us the health surcharge when we're not spending the money on health care, etc.. >> i'm matthew cohen. i'm glad to be before the supervisors, for one thing, this is the information we had, and when we saw this information, we found that even though we knew more information was going to come out subsequent to that, this is really indicative of a process which we felt was not something that you can merely look away from even with the amendment that was passed, and for one thing, i am kind of concerned that even though money is supposed to be set aside for workers and if you're using the hra's, if the private employers and a considerable amount of them employ their own accounts, this discourages employees from coming in and basically you're telling their employers what you need the medical expenses for, it's an invasion of privacy, i would rather, it's nothing we saw in the revised legislation that actually standardized guidelines, as far as
are entrusting you with additional funds to you can go out and ensure that these laws we placed on the books are taken care of. >> and just a point on that, my understanding is that a lot of that money will deal with the backlog that olse has -- adding additional resources. >> we have a number of other departments, olse had a lengthier presentation, hopefully we can move more expeditiously in the other departments. so, we'll now move to the department of public health. welcome. >> thank you so much, supervisors, i want to give you a sense of the city option we've been talking about, then go into the department of public health response tos the civil grand jury report, so we used the term healthy san francisco broadly within san francisco, but we're really talking about from the department's perspective in terms of our response, the city option. that is the option that allows an employer to indicate that they would like to contribute dollars to the city and county of san francisco and their employees will get either eligibility for healthy san francisco and enroll in that program or their emp
. the -- figuratively above the law is over the police chief and thek! sheriff. i was disappointed that the the opportunity to subpoena hear her testimony that she gave mayor lee that he should dismiss ross mirkarimi as a wife-beater. this testimony is in -- that commissioner renne tabbed is merely hear say and the worst ramblings of a first year law student. it's disappointing we have not heard ivory madison speak. the -- in the commission hearings, i attended, the question was brought up of the presumption of guilt, how many times do you beat your wife, mr. mirkarimi. and, also, i heard that the finding that sentence is evidence of guilt. the sentence is not evidence of guilt. this all unfortunately began at a meeting at the cafe -- four weeks before the -- >> president chiu: thank you very much. >> good evening,zez supervisors. obviously a long one. i want to thank you all for your endurance here. my name is gus feldman a field represent with seiu 10-1. as we move forward in the night on this matter i want you to please consider the following questions. numberguwuv one, have the
of noncompliance of the state law and should be a policy of the commission for that provision. that's one thing. and the other thing i wanted to point out is that the agenda for tonight did not include the minutes. just said that you were going to vote for the minutes. it would be nice if you could put that to the next meeting for those of us who have not seen those have a period to comment. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner hur and ethic commissioners. i am troubled that you scheduled my two cases on today's agenda. it's unethical for the ethics commission to even decide a case involving your own executive director. and the whole case should have been transferred to another jurisdiction. not just for developing a recommendation. but for holding any sort of public hearing on the matter. mr. chatfield, when he transferred my case to san jose. noted in the cover mail, quote, the ethic's commission regularly handles cases for the sunshine force act. and however cannot be (inaudible) as executive director is the named respondent in both claims, end quote. it should be argued that the ethic
's actually 6724 that defines what records must be disclosed. the state law into what public information is. >> so i need 6724. >> 6724. >> 6724 actually tells you what -- >> okay. put that on the list for now. that is a fairly important issue though i think. as we define what the public records are, we need to be confident we have that right. >> through the chair an additional point on l. misnumbered l. i will be really brief. >> really brief. >> at the tail end of the sentence it says that a willful violation of sunshine ordinance by elected official or department head occurredment i think you are continuing to drop the key phrase of 6734, that it's elected official department head or city managerial employee. and you should not drop the term, managerial here or throughout the rest of the proposed recommendation. >> okay. referral. means a written document from the task force to the commission initiating an ethics commission complaint. i think that definition can be modified to reflect that the referral is a document from the task force finding a violation of the sunshine ordinance. >> ea
and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in a box where nothing is going to change, commissione
francisco has a sheriff who is able and willing to respect the laws that apply to all of us, and to adhere to standards that we expect from leaders. to those who say don't take away my vote, i would like to say, and those who feel that ross is being unfairly targeted, i would like to say that had it been known that he lacks the integrity necessary for this job, i would not have voted for him, and i would suggest that those who feel that they are being deprived of their votes look to ross as the person responsible for taking away their votes. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is -- herrera. i've been a domestic violence advocate for six years, helping the community. i am concerned with this process has communicated to victims of domestic violence. every day we are working hard to make sure that victims are here from all over the world. and clear about their rights and understand that they have the right to be free from domestic violence, abuse, and control, from their partners. if ross mirkarimi is not removed from office after admitting abusi
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 193 (some duplicates have been removed)